Ottieni Distretti Giudiziari

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds that data is live and not hardcoded, suggesting results may change. Yet it does not disclose other behaviors like network dependency or error conditions, so the added context is moderate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one concise, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and key behavior. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters, an existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete for this simple getter. The live-data note adds relevant context, making it fully sufficient for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation to add. The schema coverage is complete, and the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 for a parameterless tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the verb 'estrae' (extracts), the resource (distretti giudiziari), and the source (BDP search select). The 'live, non hardcoded' note further distinguishes it from static lists, clearly separating it from sibling tools like ottieni_materie.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when current, dynamic districts are needed for the BDP search, with the 'live, non hardcoded' note providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.